Anti-Religious Trolling On Mumsnet

[DioneTheDiabolist]

I get that not everyone is religious and that some people are very anti-religious (some with good reasons).

But some MNetters are religious, others are simply curious. So how come so many threads are allowed to be derailed by anti-religious trolls? Today a thread about Good Friday was deleted because a troll came on. FFS, it's Easter! Threads about Islam are regularly derailed by Islamophobes. On a thread seeking information on Judaism in the Philosophy & Religion topic, a troll has posted LMFAO. Ok, serious question, why does the Jewish God make all men wear a funny beards? She continues venting for a few posts before eventually exiting the thread saying that she is on drugs because It's Easter, party time.

She is a MN regular, like most of the anti-religious trolls here. I have reported her posts but they still stand.

Trolls are not interested in knowing what other people think or believe. They have no desire to discuss the point of actual threads and rarely start threads of their own regarding their issues with religion or belief. They just derail threads in the hope of driving all talk of religion and different beliefs off MN. And they are succeeding.

Why are MNHQ allowing this to happen? Deleting threads instead of dealing with posters? Allowing blatant anti-religious trolling to derail threads that people may find supportive or informative? Is MN a religion free zone? Because if it is, that's ok. I just think that religious posters should be told. Then they can go elsewhere if they wish to discuss their beliefs.

Because it is.

Nope. You can explain why a racial slur is offensive as its tied up with tones of societal dominance/hostility and concerns a non-chosen aspect of an individual.

Conversely the term sky fairy isn't what someone calls a believer, it's how they describe a God who can't be seen who helps his followers. So why get upset? Can't a god tolerate being likened to a sky fairy? Or does the God get upset? And that's why people don't want it being used?

The only reason someone would use the term "sky fairy" is to be offensive and deliberately goading. Otherwise they would simply use the term your God or just God.

Ok, this, I think, is why the term "sky-fairy" is offensive to some theists.

It uses trivial imagery to describe something they see as very important. While I know some people believe in fairies, I don't think anybody worships them, believes they are omnipotent, etc. Most people would think of them as tiny, fictional creatures who appear in toys and books for children (the flower fairies, etc). Obviously, these creatures are much more limited in scope, power, goodness, everything, than people believe their God to be, to the point that the comparison seems offensive and absurd.

Also, the prefix "sky" appears to link to the belief, sometimes held by small children (for example my own three year old is adamant about this - must be from pictures in books) that God lives, and has Heaven, up in the clouds. As most adult Christians I know do not believe Heaven is literally up above us in the clouds, this seems deliberately infantilising.

I could go on. The point is, if people don't wish to offend, there is no need to use a metaphor at all. Just say something like "your god" or "the god you believe in", or, if that gives the concept too much existence, something like "your notion of a god", "your false belief in a god". It's easy to ditch the fairies!

I don't think this one insult is the main point of the thread at all, though. I was just responding to one question.

" don't think this one insult is the main point of the thread at all, though. I was just responding to one question"

So what is the point of this thread? I don't think I know. What specifically do people of faith want?

Sky fairy is clearly intentionally rude. In the context of a thread about routine religiously motivated circumcision, or where three quarters of the state primary schools in your borough select on grounds of religion meaning that atheists' children have to commute to the other side of London, then I can see why posters want to use it to point the idea that these things are being done in the name of a supernatural being they find ludicrous.

In the context of other posters simply talking about their belief in God then it's really not on.

Ok. right.

Say people promise never to say "sky fairy" ever again. Or "imaginary friend"

Would that sort the problem?

MUMSNET HQ have an interesting conundrum. If they try and insist on basic netiquette which is based around mutual respect for the person behind the screen then they will upset some anti theists who insist that people of faith should not be respected. Richard Dawkins was quite clear that people of religion should be mocked and ridiculed.

However this sort of behaviour, where it takes a brave person to post on religious issues on this website because of the constant derailing by those hostile to Christianity, as being hostile to other faiths is more obvious, may still fall foul of the Equalities Act.

You need to read the Equalities Act.

Do you feel that people who use the term sky fairy should be prosecuted?

may still fall foul of the Equalities Act.

At what point should we involve the police?

Atheists are just as likely to be rude and uncouth as any other sort of people. But I don't think there are any who think that as atheists they should mock and be rude to people of faith.

However, I think the right to be challenging to and, yes, be rude about actual beliefs is an important one.

Incidentally, think what you like about Richard Dawkins, and think that he has written some excellent books (his children's book, The Magic of Reality is wonderful) but is a mysogynist git, he is a proper equal opportunities God-Basher.

Say people promise never to say "sky fairy" ever again. Or "imaginary friend"

Would that sort the problem?

Perhaps people should just promise to treat other people's beliefs with respect. That would solve the problem.

Headinhands: I haven't generally allowed myself to become overly riled by the use of 'sky fairy' or 'flying spaghetti monster' or the like, because I've taken the general stance that my God can take it, I can take it. However, I do think they are derogatory terms and can become somewhat wearing after the nth time of reading, and a always appreciated debate with people like you and Bertrand for the specific reason that you don't tend to stoop to the levels of such lazy language.

I think the reason they are inflammatory is as lovely says; they implicitly imply a delusion on the part of the person of faith, no, more than that, an idiocy, a dimwittedness. The terms say that a person believing in God are stupid - their belief is as valid as belief in . Now, I'm aware that people think we are this stupid, and am not actually saying that you should not be allowed to communicate your complete incomprehension at our choices, but if you can do that without insult (as you and Bertrand tend not to) then that would be well received and actually make for much better and more focused debate.

To Bertrand's question: yes, I do see people of faith occasionally attacking atheists and am just as uncomfortable about this. I have to be honest, though, I haven't seen much of the equivalent to the derogatory terms which are the main focus of this thread - not much implication that the atheist is stupid/mentally challenged/has no cogent thought process of their own. Maybe there has been such that I haven't seen.

I have noticed some comments along the line of what you mention - the suck up a little Christianity thing and yes minimising your discomfort with it and try to avoid that myself because I know your feelings are strong and therefore I do my best to honour them and sorry if I fail sometimes.

I do think there are a few deliberately GF posters on mn who come on religion threads to play havoc and ruin it for those who want to debate with politeness and respect, and I do think mn are not always quick to address these posts.

Religion is a tool of oppression.
The power of the church needs questioning.

My kids attend a campus school. Children of the same community attend two different schools, purposely built to accommodate the catholic school and the non denominational school. They share dining facilities, but the hall is screened off so that catholics sit in one area and non- doms the other.
The playground has a high fence splitting the two school communities.
Beginning and end of school days are staggered to prevent the children coming into too much contact with each other, as fights often develop. These are children living in the same street together, but divided by religion.
The church is responsible for creating divisions within our community.

THis is bat shit. I have zero respect for the church, and their idols.

Perhaps people should just promise to treat other people's beliefs with respect.

That's not workable. While I can respect your right to have an opinion, I cannot respect your opinion if I think it's wrong/silly/harmful.

Would you respect my opinion that everyone called Paul is secretly part of a Paul movement and will one day rise up to dominate all non-Pauls into subservience? And you would say 'yes I respect your opinion?'

Any belief whatsoever? What about Satanism? What about those strange religions where they decide that children are possessed by the devil and should be sacrificed for that reason? I'm definitely going to struggle to treat those beliefs with respect. And I'm really not prepared to respect people who commit terrorist acts in the name of religion either.

OK.

"Treat other people's beliefs with respect" What does that mean? All beliefs? Horoscopes? Does treating them with respect mean not criticizing either the beliefs or actions carried out in their name? Can I not say that I think the practices of some faiths are barbaric- cutting off the hands of thieves, for example? Or the Christian churches hierarchies' response to child abuse? Can I say that is unforgivable? What about reading tea leaves? Can I say that's bonkers?

Oh FFS.

Only the terminally thick wouldn't understand what that means.

There is a difference between saying you think something is bonkers and being rude and offensive about it.

But you carry on being disingenuous.

That example is intrinsically harmful though headinhands.

If someone believes that people called Paul are descended from lizards then you nod and smile, or say "I believe that to be untrue, and may I refer you to the DNA research on the subject?" At the point where they say "and therefore shouldn't have access to the NHS", that's the point where you say "fuck off, that's fucking batshit".

I would suggest that the Catholic church's stance on contraception is intrinsically harmful- should I respect that?

No, it isn't disingenuous, Soup. You said, without qualification, "Perhaps people should just promise to treat other people's beliefs with respect. That would solve the problem." You now seem to be saying that actually you don't think all beliefs should be treated with respect. So where do you draw the dividing line? Is it only the mainstream religions? Only single deity religions? Only Christian religions? And what about the fact that few if any of those religions have a history that is fully worthy of respect? Should we respect Christianity for the good things but feel free to disrespect it for burning people at the stake and looking the other way in relation to paedophile priests?

The point is that nothing is worthy of automatic respect purely because people choose to believe in it.

I think trying to be kind, is a good starting point. Jumping in with derogatory comments over a poster's intelligence only based only on them stating a religious belief is rather prejudiced IMO.

Also, discussion should focus on what posters say they believe (if that what the thread is about) rather than another poster's perception of a particular set of religious beliefs. Posters cannot really answer for other's beliefs. I have said before, I think a 'straw man' gets built out of poster's Christian beliefs on here, the beliefs they are often repeatedly challenged on, bear no relation to the beliefs they possess. Which is unfair.

Added to this, whilst a little diversion, on a thread, might be interesting just coming on to globally challenge Christianity and ask questions, only in order to challenge religious belief, when the purpose of the thread was discuss an aspect of worship, does close down discussion - it means religious posters cannot discuss aspects of faith without constant interruption.

I read 'beliefs' there to mean religious beliefs, which would mean the main faiths.

I wouldn't dream of comparing those to horoscopes, which AFAIK are never counted as a religion. I don't think that making comparisons which appear to be intended to trivialise, obfuscate or just use reductio ad absurbam to be particularly helpful.

"I would suggest that the Catholic church's stance on contraception is intrinsically harmful- should I respect that?"

You can still disagree with, and even campaign against, individual policies of the church without disrespecting the faith (after all, thousands of Catholics do precisely that on this issue) or using terms which offend its adherents.

Of course I can disrespect faith.

So what is the point of this thread?

If the Tin Man would acknowledge that the Scarecrow has a brain
And the Scarecrow would acknowledge that the Tin Man has a heart
Things would be much more harmonious on the Yellow Brick Road

< Just my two bits worth as I have my morning cup of >

pearly you can choose to disrespect anything you want to, however the question is whether MN should let you post disrespectfully on it's site without intervention.